tv Forbes on FOX FOX Business June 1, 2014 2:00am-2:31am EDT
finally, a little risky but i like it a lot. a technology company. it's been hit. i think it's cheap down here. >> here's howmezmerizeed adam and ben stein were. no comment. just stunned awe waiting for his big show on monday. >> the u.s. economy shrinking in the first quarter of the year for the first time in three years and what's the government doing about it? spending more tax dollars on more programs. try $1.3 billion on developing manufacturing centers all over the u.s. they say it will help the economy but will spending more on more government backed initiatives hurt and not help? hey everybody. welcome to forbes on fox. let's go into focus with steve forbes, mike, rick, and john. steve who better to start with than the guy that just wrote a book about money. this is a must read on how to
protect the global economy. so is another government directed depending plan going to help? >> no, david. you just asked the question that 1.3 billion who would you rather have the fun in the hands of? bureaucrats of venture capitalists. and they aren't putting that money to work because of regulations, taxation and uncertainly. we would have much more manufacturing and much more robust economy. >> rick, we had two experiments in coming out of the deep recession in the past 30 years. one in the 80s where you go through and look at the various years of growth in the 80s. the average coming out of the recession is 3.5% growth. the average out of this recession is basically flat. doesn't that show that the less government does the better? >> no, i don't know that that makes that statement at all. look, there's no arguing that this recession has been far more difficult to get out of than previous ones but i think that's the reality of life. some recessions are going to be worse than others.
some actually reach the level of depression. where i have to disagree a little bit with steve is the plan that's being put forth now actually is taking government money toelp those in the private markets to begin investing in manufacturing. not sure why that's a bad idea. i would be willing to bet my friend steve liked it when jack kemp was the first to recommend enterprise own and it was an republican idea. >> president obama outlined this plan and said the following. i'm going to quote, president obama has focused on boosting u.s. manufacturing by rewarding companies that create jobs here rescuing the u.s. auto industry and expanding exports. again, he rewards companies. he rescued the u.s. auto companies. he's putting himself at the forefront of this economy. >> it all sounds good, doesn't it? but the greatest example of a
free market versus government assistance that we have that applies to manufacturing is between ford motor and general motors. ford motor is just at it now and did it all on their own and with innovation and global expansion and they added jobs and general motors continues to have problems. look at the most recent scandal that's been brewing in general motors. so this is, you know, steve gets to the point. we have to decide whether this is welfare or whether it's really investment and if it's really investment, then why aren't private investors coming in? >> and now it's an italian car company so we won't even get into that but the bottom line this where ever you have the government that involved in the process of generating an economy, that's where you end up with these pathetic stats. >> crony capitalism is one of the reasons we got into the
recession for the first place. also how puny has the president become where he actually thinks that $1.4 billion in a $17 trillion economy is going to amount to anything? i mean, what a small minded thinking individual. when you have something that's temporary anyway, investors know and it doesn't work. you need measures that are permanent. that's what creates hiring and creates jobs. that's what we need. something like permanent reductions in marginal tax rates. that will get investment and hiring up. >> and sabrina, the american people more agree with mike's view on the economy than they do with the presidents. if you look at a recent poll, only 46% approve. 50% disapprove. >> well, i think it's because the american people are picking up on the president and many republicans confusion about what kind of economy we're living in today. today, 70% of our wealth is created from the service sector. from an information economy. not from producing stuff. while of course we all want
people to have more jobs, the president shouldn't be in the business of determining where those resources go. what's more, he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. the manufacturing industry is growing right now and it's expected to surpass $2 trillion this year. the number one reason is because of affordable, clean, natural gas. something that democrats and progressives are at war with. so if the president really wants to spur manufacturing growth, he should stop pouring money at it at the same time as he is overregulating the energy. >> and just stop trying to direct it. this is -- these pathetic, really negative figures on growth is an indictment of central planning, is it not? >> absolutely. i said it a lot on the show before but governments have no resources. the only way they can spend money is if they tax and borrow it from us first. you have this horrible scenario where harry reid and barrack obama are allocating capitol instead of warren buffet and
jeff besos. they do it wastefully. we don't have capital to waste. so it's of course going to slow the economy down. >> rick, greg who was a colleague of ours here at fox, he has banned the phase government funding. he says there's no such thing as government funding. everything the government does comes from us, right? >> he bans a lot of phrases i might be using. >> but that's a good one. >> i have to mess with sabrina's argument. she is saying that 70% of our economy is service and i agree. but then she points out that the manufacturing sector is growing in this country and the whole point of this plan is to help guide it into some area where is the type of employees live that can fill those factories and create jobs. >> fair enough. let's have her respond. go ahead sabrina. >> my point is that the manufacturing industry is growing on its own but to get back to what's good for taxpayers is that people are thinkinghe president
perpetuated this narrative that to help the middle class we need to have more manufacturing jobs but it's not a net negative that manufacturing has moved overseas in large numbers. the fact is something that's so important to a thriving society is to be able to access affordable products and goods from all over the world and the fact is the american middle class can do that now as a result of this shift. so it's not sort of that game so to speak. >> well, the point is that the market can allocate things far better than central planners can, right? >> yes, david. the market can create resources and mike and john point out far better than the government ever could and as for rick's point about jack kemp in enterprise zones, he wanted to reduce regulations and taxation and let entrepreneurs come in and do the job. we're getting a renaissance because of cheap energy which it is pointed out the liberals opposed. if the government got out of the way this economy would boom. >> i don't disagree but what he's leaving out is tax credits,
money were going into those enterprise zones so in addition to the list steve offered which is true, there was also that. but mike, the whole country should be an enterprise zone. isn't that the point? >> yes, that is the point, david. >> it used to be an enterprise zone. >> why is the president saying we need people in manufacturing plants as opposed to let's say technicians at the next google or facebook? >> last word for mike. coming up next, why d.c. thinks you can afford an extra $for al. get ready to scream. [ screaming ] former microsoft .
i'll see you back here at 1:00 p.m. so a new round of government rules to fight global warming are said to be just days away and the chamber of commerce saying the cost of businesses and you the consumer will be $50 billion every year. meanwhile, a separate report showing 36 other regulations are jacking prices up from everything to appliances to cars. the cost of these things really add up. that's made $289 billion for electricity and disposable income would decrease by $586 billion. that's a lot of cash. >> it is.
regulations are a tax that all americans pay in a big way and they're an obnoxious conceit that presumes those that cannot can overseed those that can. they're the equivalent of saying oxford college could beat the usc in football on a regular basis. but it's the untalented trying to oversee the talented. >> this is another kind of tax, is it not. >> all right. >> so let's get that out of the way. look, here's what i find odd about this algd study by the chamber of commerce. none of us know what the president is going to propose on monday. the only thing we can really predict is we'll be talking about it all summer. i'll say what i always say about regulations. i agree we're overregulated. consider the reason why. some things have to be regulated
because business won't do the right thing on their own. watch the regulators fall off. big business creates big government. >> but rich, they're regulating everything. we just saw that list. there's new dishwasher regulators. new washington machine regulators. i imagine if you don't do what the government says you'll have dishwasher police come into your house, right? >> well, you know, the thing that's really disturbing about this administration is all they know how to do is tax and punish. they don't know anything about creating incentives for goods and services on the supply side. if you punish the suppliers prices will go up because you have fewer goods and services to go around. great entrepreneurs with draw from competition and it creates this, it just creates this that we're in now. >> and for what, the cost, you wonder whether the cost is equal to the benefits. sabrina, they say even if these
epa regulations go through, according to the chamber, it will reduce overall emissions by 1.8% for all of these hundreds of billions of dollars during a period when global carbon emissions will increase by 33%. so is that a return on investment? >> right. i don't think so. i think that's one of the big points here. we have to consider if these regulations are helping or hurting the economy. the ballooning regulatory state is a serious problem for american families and businesses. i understand the chamber's numbers are even a little lower than the competitive enterprise institute that says that the cost of regulation annually costs taxpayers 1 trillion. these are hidden taxes. >> and rick is right. we don't yet know the specifics of it. on monday we're going to find out more details about it. but still you look at what has already been put in place and the consumer -- it's no wonder
people have less money in their pocket. >> and obama made no secret that he hates coal and wants to destroy that industry. we know it's going to come down the pike and the other thing we know is as far as the cap and trade carbon regulation our friends across the pond were basically our self-imposed guinea pig on this issue. they implemented a similar, europeans did this cap and trade mess. they have done massive subsidies and have done nothing. my colleague from the manhattan institute found that between 2005 and 2012 the cost of electricity for consumers in europe squaked up by 65%. >> i saw that. >> it's really scary. >> quickly. >> and the other thing is we here in the u.s. actually reduced our carbon emissions more than they did. >> of course the other guys aren't doing it. steve there's costs but also restrictions. we areeing restricted now so much in terms of what we did k
do with our own private property. there's a cost there as well. >> absolutely. those are the unseen things. for example, the federal government was a little more rational in terms of expiration we'd have more energy and the reason our emissions are going down is because of natural gas which the government did everything they could to block. the implementation of fracing and it comes to what is pointed out $1.8 trillion a year. and germany has electricity costs three times that of the u.s. consumer. >> i know and that's where we want to go? i don't think so. guys, thank you very much. coming up, restaurant with customers packing semiautomatic weapons. would you take your kid there is? well, cashing in is taking aim at a battle between gun owners and business owners. but first, a new food fight over whether to toss out the government's healthy lunch program. a lot are tossing it into the trash and why this young, fit student may be
well, it's not quite that bad but there is a new food fight in america. the first lady and democrats fighting back against house republicans who just voted to let schools opt out of the healthy lunch plans that are costing them money because kids aren't buying them and it comes just days after this 9-year-old, 66 pound girl got a fitness gram from her school saying she is overweight. now sabrina said government mandated menus have to go,
right? >> they do. it's bad enough that the government is in the business of educating our kids but now they're feeding them. breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks. it's summer programs. i'm a mom. the first thing you learn when you have a child is how to feed them. it's pushing parents out of their real job to feed their children. it started as a program to helped underprivileged kids. it's now a program that serves 41 million american students and 40% of them are buying this food on their own. this is a crazy program. >> they try to shove this food down our throats and the kids reject it. >> kids have been rejecting the food in the cafeterias at school since i was a kid. that was a long time ago. >> i liked the french fries. >> when they had them. they didn't have them every day. >> that's part of the problem. >> is problem is instead of politicizing this let's feel with the fact that we have a
serious problem with obese children. >> but that girl was not obese. she was 66 pounds. >> you're right. that was insane and absurd but you cannot judge an entire situation by one piece of insanity on either direction. so let's not do that. we do need to deal with the problem. >> steve is literally a card carrier member of the sort of thing mrs. obama is against. there it is. a burger king card. >> burger king and mcdonald's. kids are going to eat what they want to eat. the key thing is having parents do the right job and that's education but the problem is even so-called healthy food, the way schools do it, you want to throw it away. it's unhealthy the way they treat healthy food. >> i agree with rick up to a point. there is a role for the administration to play. sort of guiding and setting an example. i remember jfk did that with regard to exercise. that's okay. but it's these mandates that are the problem. >> right. and the problem is that it's coming from on high. it's dictating from a very
centralized bureaucratic mandate when what we need is local control. that's what these republican re are trying to do. you must buy certain types of food. the local marketplaces, it's a lot more expensive or unavailable and it's unfair to impose these really top heavy demands. >> to impose and then, mike, to use science as your justification. michelle obama is talk about potatoes being bad because science says so. well, science has a lot of different views on things. think of all the bad foods coming back as healthy now. >> my doctor gave me the best advice when it came to food. eat a little bit of everything and don't worry about anything. this entire program should be completely scrapped. kids not only are throwing food away. they're not buying it. sales at many schools are down between 10 and 12% and we should ask ourselves why as the federal government has increasingly become involved with nutrition at schools has thelth of young
kids gotten worse and worse. >> and sabrina, it is the parents responsibility, right? it's not the governments. >> of course it s. it's just one of those ways that government tries to push parents farther out of the picture. do we want parents to take less interest in their kids? less interest in their wellbeing? of course not. we want to make sure that people have information to make good choices but when government gets in the way it makes it harder for parents to actually do their job. >> rick, if you had a bowl of french fries in front of you right now, would you eat them? >> yes but then i'm one of those kids that was eating terribly at school and grew up and got diabetes. so i'm not the example you're looking for. i agree parents should do it but we're all going to be paying the price for when they don't. >> last word from rick. coming up, markets keep climbing to new highs. our informers say they have the names that will keep taking your profits to new highs. you want to stay around for that.
we are back. our informers have got the stocks set to hit their all time highs. mike, weiss markets. why do you like it? >> i'm going with the supermarket companies because we have seen bad economic data recently. people will eat at he more which is good for this company. >> that's an interesting idea. john do you buy it? >> there are profits in the obscure. >> okay. mcdonald's corporation. why do you like it? >> well, those mcflurries are good and people are more penny-wise these days.
>> most people will be impacted by even the higher prices at mcdonald's and will start cooking at home. >> even mcdonalds is too expensive. that's it for forbes on fox. s block onderful weekend. continues with eric bolling and cashin in. >> criminal investigation into this matter. there is a commitment here to get to the bottom of what happened. have made a very substantial progress in that investigation. he wants it investigated. >> investigation after investigation, the white house keeps looking into things. the va disaster, the irs scandal, benghazi and now leaking the name of a cia spy. instead of probing, should the president start leading and finally making some stuff decisions? plus. ♪ >> it's a new segment bound to make you happy. we go rapid fire.